Owwwww!!!!!

[Mexlin]

am i the only one wondering as to why the burglar had no pants on while robbing an old woman?

 

[Cdr]

Originally posted by Y0ni
the case of donahue and stephenson gave rise to the precedent of "owing a duty of care to your neighbour". I believe this definition includes people breaking into your home and hurting themselves on your property

Although the case of Donoghue v Stevenson gave rise to the initial idea of negligence, and duty of care, there is a seperate section of law which this fits into - occupiers liability, which basically states that you owe a duty of care to anyone on your property, be it a postman or a burglar. But this is only the case if the occupier knows of a risk, or a possible danger on the property - such as a loose paving slap or a faulty hand rail on a set of stairs. If a burglar was to injure himself on one of these, then he could sue. If he injured himself on a broken window which he had caused, then he would have no case.

 

[Yoni]

thx I think I kinda said that in not so many words

 

[Cdr]

heh well, I just stuck it all together and made it sound better

 

[Gumbo]

Isn't that precisely why they pay the lawyers the big bucks? It can't be for their contribution to society can it

 

[Cdr]

Whats that? To take stuff thats already been said, change the words a bit and claim it as their own info?

Hell yeah